Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Brian Charland’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a writ of error coram nobis. Charland alleged that the prosecution withheld recorded statements by the victim in violation of Brady v. Maryland, but the court found his allegations unsupported by factual detail and insufficient to show a meritorious claim. The court declined to address the State’s argument that the petition was untimely for lack of due diligence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Charland should be permitted to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court to pursue a writ of error coram nobis after his conviction had been affirmed on appeal.
- Whether the alleged withholding of recordings of the victim's statements stated a potentially meritorious Brady violation sufficient to support coram-nobis relief.
- Whether Charland's additional allegations concerning judicial bias and coercion of his confession supported coram-nobis relief.
Holdings
- Permission to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court was denied because Charland failed to show that the claims in his proposed coram-nobis petition would constitute a meritorious attack on the judgment.
- The allegations did not establish a basis for a Brady violation or coram-nobis relief because Charland did not provide factual support showing that the recordings existed, were suppressed, contained materially conflicting statements, or caused prejudice.
- The unsubstantiated allegations that the trial judge was biased and that the confession was coerced did not provide a basis for coram-nobis relief.
Key quotations
“A writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinarily rare remedy, more known for its denial than its approval.” (at 2)
“The petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.” (at 2)
“There are three elements of a Brady violation: (1) the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it is impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; (3) prejudice must have ensued.” (at 3)
Factual background
In 2009, a jury found Brian Charland guilty of three counts of raping his seven-year-old daughter. The trial evidence included an investigator's testimony concerning an interview with the victim and Charland's written and videotaped statements. Charland alleged that the prosecution withheld recordings in which the victim gave differing accounts, but he provided no facts establishing that the recordings existed, were suppressed, or contained conflicting statements.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Charland of three counts of rape, and he received an aggregate sentence of 900 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Arkansas Supreme Court later affirmed the denial of Charland's Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Charland then sought permission to return to the circuit court with a coram-nobis petition based primarily on an alleged Brady violation involving recordings of the victim's statements; the Supreme Court denied permission.